apologetics theology culture worship

​There are some really difficult verses in the Bible...especially in the Old Testament. Why do some people think the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament? Does the Old Testament condone things like rape, genocide, and the oppression of women? Today, Dr. Paul Copan was kind enough to sit in the hot seat and field questions about specific Bible verses that seem to support these things.

There is no hint in the account of Jesus cleansing the temple that would suggest that he hurt any person or animal. He fashioned a whip and drove them out. When you crack a whip it startles the animals causing them to run. You do not hit them.
In fact driving them out of the temple actually saved their lives because the whole reason they were in the temple was to be sold for sacrifice. Even if you think it was a violent act, he certainly did not kill anyone.
Say what you will about Boyd's cruciform hermenutic, it is at least internally consistent : Jesus shows us exactly what God is like.
Paul Copans argument seems to be: OT rape wasn't really rape, OT genocide wasn't really that bad, and if God says to do something it is always good, even when it appears to be evil.

Reply

Alisa Childers

8/13/2018 10:45:05 pm

Hi Eric, thanks for listening!

I went back and listened, and Copan didn't claim that Jesus hurt anyone, but he was making the point that Jesus was using coercive force. But even if no one was actually struck with the whip, I think we have to admit that the act itself was on the violent side. I mean....if someone went into a public place today with a whip and chased everyone out, turning over tables, and flipping the seats of the workers, they would probably be leaving in handcuffs. I think his main point there was that Jesus wasn't (in that particular situation) saying, "Father forgive them." I agree this does show us what God is like. . . but it doesn't match the cruciform hermeneutic.

But even if we put the cleansing of the Temple aside, even Brian McLaren admitted in his book, "A New Kind of Christianity," that to make this mindset work, you have do have a very "creative" interpretation of Revelation—the Jesus we find there has a sword in his mouth and a robed dipped in blood—ruling the nations with a rod of iron. Like Copan pointed out, he executes judgment on His enemies.

Regarding what Copan said about genocide, there are other conservative Christians who actually agree with you. And I might be inclined to agree that although I do think there is some hyperbolic language, it's possible Copan takes it too far. Clay Jones, a previous guest takes a different view that is worth exploring. I posted a link to one of his articles below Religious Vortex's comment in which he disagrees with Copan. Jones' view is that the Canaanite Conquest was exactly as bloody and horrific as it sounds, but when we really understand the Canaanite culture, we see that God is not committing genocide, but capital punishment. His article, "We Don't Hate Sin So We Don't Understand What Happened to the Canaanites," is a must-read when considering these arguments. He also has several articles on his website, clayjones.net on this subject.

There is no doubt that Jesus was angry when he cleansed the temple. Angry at the corruption of the money changers. I believe this was an act of 'prophetic theater' that not only pointed out the corruption of the temple system, but would also come to show there would no longer be a need for the temple at all, because he was bringing a new and better covenant. This actually DID lead to his arrest and execution.
When he said on the cross "father forgive them' I take it as to mean not only those who killed him, but also the money changers, and also us.
As to Revelation, the sword comes out of his mouth and his robe is diped in his own blood. There is actually no battle in the book at all.
The futuristic view of Revelation may be the most common view among protestants today, but it is not the only way to read it.
I recomend Revelation: Four Views by Steve Gregg for an even handed look at all four. Also: Reading Revelation Responsibly by Michael Gorman for a non-violent reading.
Thanks Alisa.

Alisa Childers

8/14/2018 07:44:10 am

I loved Gregg's book. Essential reading for any Christian wanting to understand eschatology for sure.

Hyperbole is not a good argument to justify these stories. Dueteronomy 20:16 very specifically says God has "commanded them", so Copan's answer very quickly becomes lacking unless we are comfortable saying the author exaggerated God's commands for his own artistic pleasure or some other unkown purpose. Hyperbole is a way for evangelical Christians to skate to the side of a literal interpretation when there really is not a good or positive answer to protect the God of the OT from the idea of commanding the Isrealites to kill others. God, earlier, even comforts them, through the priest, by saying he will go with them to destroy their enemies. The easiest reading is to see that God wants them to kill all things that breathe.
Copan very clearly results to "if God did say to do it, then he is justified in doing so" because God is just. So which is it? God's just command to kill all that breathes or an author that's stretching the reality of the story for a more exciting read? If that one is hyperbole, how do you defend the resurrection from being hyperbole as well? What about the flood.... hyperbole or did God wipe out the entire human race but those on the ark?
I appreciate your interview of Copan but the whole time I was hoping you would push back on his logic so it would be a critical conversation, not just supportive sound bites of an evangelical worldview, which us one of many in Christianity. His statement about, "but look at all the people that lived" when he was talking about genocide is cringe worthy.

Reply

Alisa Childers

8/13/2018 10:29:52 pm

Fair point. I know that one of my former guests, Clay Jones disagrees with Copan, and wrote about it in the piece below. I agree with Copan that there is some hyperbolic language, but I think it should not be discarded that Jones thinks Copan takes it too far. Here is an article to consider: